Friday, April 26, 2013

Every Friday, the Brennan Center will be compiling the latest
news concerning the corrosive nature of money in New York State politics—and
the ongoing need for public financing and robust campaign finance reform. We’ll
also be linking to dispatches from around the country highlighting the national
scope of this crisis. This week’s links were contributed by Syed Zaidi.

Syracuse
Post-Standard Editorializes In Favor of Small Donor Matching Funds for First
Time

On Tuesday, the Syracuse
Post-Standard
editorialized in favor of small donor matching funds for the first time. According to the editorial,
when paired with spending limits and other electoral reforms, public financing
of campaigns can help address the culture of corruption in Albany. “Public
campaign financing will not cure all that ails the body politic. It cannot
detect a larcenous heart. But it seems a relatively cheap and sensible step
toward restoring confidence that state government – the Legislature, in
particular – acts in the public’s interest.” Although opponents have expressed
concern about the costs, the Post-Standard
points to the $420 million in incentives that the film and television
industries received in this year’s state budget. And film and television are
only one special interest group out of many that are present in Albany. The
editorial notes, “If we value our democracy, we should be willing to invest in
it.” Engaging more small donors and making legislators more dependent on their
constituents, rather than a few wealthy special interests, offers an added
layer of defense against corruption.

New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon
Silver has unveiled a new campaign finance
reform proposal.
The bill, A4980B, includes a small donor matching
component, where every contribution up to $250 by state residents is matched
with public funds at a 6-to-1 ratio. “We
cannot allow elected public service to become the exclusive domain of the
wealthy and the well connected,” Speaker Silver stated. Stronger enforcement of
the law and penalties for violations will be enforced by a new body, the Fair
Elections Board, to be situated within the state Board of Elections. Organizations
making independent political expenditures over $1,000 would have to
disclose the name of the person or group behind the spending, and report all
major contributors (those that donated over $1,000) to the Board of Elections. The
Senate Independent Democratic Conference, headed by Senator Jeffrey Klein, criticized the proposal for failing to eliminate political
party housekeeping accounts, and transfers between party committees and
individual candidates. "Unless these measures
are part of a more comprehensive plan to eliminate party slush funds and slash
six figure contributions, we'll be right back to where we started. Our
members look forward to discussing these proposals alongside the more
comprehensive plan outlined by the Independent Democratic Conference last week,"
IDC Spokesman Eric Soufer stated.

The Cost of Public
Financing is about $2 per New Yorker per Year

Recently, the New York State Senate
Republican Conference, which is opposed to publicly funded
elections, finally
explained how it arrived at its inflated estimate of the cost of public
financing. The method was immediately assailed
by campaign finance expert Prof. Michael Malbin, who called it “little more
than back of the envelope arithmetic based on incredible assumptions.” The
Campaign Finance Institute has used peer-reviewed methods to conclude that the
cost of public campaign funding under current proposals would be between $26
and $41 million per year. Senate Republicans’ estimate is many times higher.
The Republicans’ calculation unrealistically assumes that there would be two
candidates in every general election and each would earn the maximum amount of
public funds. For primary elections, the GOP analysis assumes that a quarter of
senators would participate in a primary, with one candidate per race receiving
the maximum amount of public funds. It is important to note that under Speaker
Sheldon Silver’s bill, (1) receiving public funds depends on the candidate’s
ability to raise money from numerous small donors, so only donations up to $250
are matched with taxpayer dollars and that (2) candidates are limited to a
maximum amount of public funds ($400,000 for Senate candidates and $200,000 for
Assembly candidates in the general election race). The Senate Republicans’
assumption, that two candidates in every general election would receive the
maximum amount of public funds, does not jibe with the experience of New York
City, where a multiple matching funds system is already in place. Between 2001
and 2009, only 51 percent of candidates running in New York City elections
received the maximum amount of public matching funds. According
to the Campaign Finance Institute, under the least expensive scenario, the cost
would be $1.34 per New York resident per year, while it would be $2.08 per New York
resident per year for the most expensive scenario—a small price to pay for
cleaner elections.

Campaign
Finance Reform Can Help Crack Down on Corruption

A 2011 report by the Center for
Competitive Politics has
been seized upon by opponents of Fair Elections to argue that the public
financing system in New York City is characterized by consistent abuse of
public funds and corruption. But the facts just don’t support that
characterization. Since New York City adopted public financing in 1988 it has
not faced a corruption scandal on the same scale as the 1980s. The CCP report
outlines 24 scandals related to New York City elections in an attempt to argue that
public funding does not deter corruption. Brennan Center counsel Ian Vandewalker’s detailed
investigation of the report
reveals that several cases have no relationship to public financing, including
one involving a state legislator who never participated in city elections. Half
the cases involve allegations or investigations that yielded no criminal or
election law violation. Furthermore, several others listed describe instances
where candidates attempted to violate the rules of New York City’s public
financing system, but were caught by the city’s enforcement agency and fined or
denied public funds. Enforcement is a necessary component of any effective
campaign finance reform proposal. Along with vigilant enforcement of the law,
disclosure of contributions, and lower contribution limits, public financing of
elections can “end the mad chase for campaign cash that starts some elected
officials down the road to corruption and … make candidates dependent on
ordinary voters rather than special interests.”

Bad
Legal Arguments Can’t Stop Reform

With the introduction of Fair Elections
legislation in both chambers, and strong
popular support for the effort among voters, opponents are attempting
to raise legal barriers to the reform. Specifically, some are alleging that
the New York State Constitution forbids
the use of public funds for election campaigns. The Constitution says that “the
money of the state shall not be given or loaned to or in aid of any private
corporation or association, or private
undertaking.” As Larry
Norden, deputy director at the Brennan Center, illustrates, elections are, in
any sense of the word, competitions for public
office. In a 2011 case, Bordeleau v.
State of New York, the New
York Court of Appeals evaluated the section of the Constitution at issue and
ruled that the “burden” of challenging any public financing statute on
these grounds is “exceedingly strong.” This is because “enactments of the
Legislature” enjoy the presumption of constitutionality, especially when
Legislative expenditures are “designed in the public interest.” Furthermore, 46
other statutes that have a similar prohibition on the use of public funds for
private undertakings, including Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine, are home to
thriving public election financing programs.

New
Demos Report Lauds Benefits of Public Financing in Connecticut

Demos has released a new report titled Fresh
Start: The Impact of Public Campaign Financing in Connecticut. The study is co-authored by J. Mijin
Cha, senior policy analyst at Demos, and Miles Rapoport, Demos president and a
former Secretary of State for Connecticut. It chronicles significant changes
in the Connecticut Legislature
following the state-wide adoption of a public financing system. Public
financing of elections has increased the number of small donors because Legislators
receive incentives for raising small contributions from a minimum number of
in-district donors. The influence of lobbyists has perceptively declined. As
one former Legislator recalled, “Before public financing, during the
session … there were ‘shakedowns’ where lobbyists and corporate sponsors had
events and you as a legislator had to go. That’s no longer a part of the
reality.” In addition, elections are more competitive, as new potential
candidates are no longer deterred by the large war chests of incumbents. The
2008 election had the lowest number of uncontested seats since 1998, indicating
that more candidates were running. Public financing has also proven
to be immensely popular with voters, with 79 percent in
favor of the clean elections program. Furthermore, voters understand that loose
campaign finance laws and mega-donations breed corruption. They were three
times more likely to agree with the statement, “The state needs the Citizens’ Election
Program because, in the past, lobbyists and state contractors received special
deals in exchange for political contributions which has even landed some
politicians in jail,” than an alternative criticizing the cost of the program.

Governor
Cuomo Announces New Proposals to Anti-Corruption Agenda

Governor Andrew Cuomo has
announced new proposals to his anti-corruption agenda, following the arrest
of New York State Senator Malcolm Smith (D-Hollis). The Governor wants to
revoke Wilson-Pakula, which governs the process by which candidates can run on
a party’s ballot even if they are not members of that party. State Senator Malcolm Smith, a Democrat, is charged with
trying to bribe Republican County Chairs in New York City to convince them to
allow Smith to run on the GOP ballot for mayor. The Governor is arguing that
Wilson-Pakula creates ethical conflicts, as candidates try to bribe or make
large donations to political parties to gain ballot access. “You‘ve heard the
expression ‘pay to play’,” Cuomo said. “This is pay to run.” The Assembly
Democrats are not backing the repeal of Wilson-Pakula. “I don’t think we should
preclude people from running on more than one [political party] line,” Speaker
Sheldon Silver stated.

By Ian VandewalkerThe public has been shocked at the recent corruption scandals marring New York politics, and calls for reform have grown louder. Addressing the “show me the money” culture
in Albany requires a systemic solution, and that solution must include
comprehensive campaign finance reform including public financing,
lowering contribution limits, and improved enforcement of election laws.
Public financing is crucial because it will release candidates from
their dependence on big-money donors and restore public trust in
government.Public Campaign Financing Curbs CorruptionNew York City enacted a public financing system in response to a
massive corruption crisis in the 1980s. Mayor Ed Koch’s administration
was slammed with a series of scandals involving graft, bribery, and
extortion. Party bosses packed several city agencies with patronage
appointments and created a system in which thousands of parking meter
attendants and municipal inspectors took graft. With party bosses’ tight
control over their agencies, multiple whistleblowers were ignored. In
the decade prior to the passage of public financing in 1988, four of the
city’s elected officials, including a borough president, were convicted
of corruption charges, one was censured by the City Council and later
convicted of tax crimes, and another borough president committed suicide
as more and more evidence came to light implicating him in bribery and
kickback schemes.Since the enactment of public campaign financing, New York City has
not seen another corruption crisis remotely resembling that of the
1980s. Although there have been individuals who sought personal gain at
the expense of the public fisc, they have been caught quickly and faced
the consequences. The city’s public funding system has succeeded in
making elections more competitive, allowing candidates to campaign more
than they fundraise, and making sure candidates play by the rules. In
its oversight of the 2009 elections, the New York City Campaign Finance
Board penalized several campaigns for improper spending: The agency
imposed fines and required campaigns to return more than $400,000 in
public funds. The system has also dramatically increased the diversity of donors, greatly increasing the influence and voice of small donors without access to large sums of money.In neighboring Connecticut, comprehensive campaign finance reform
with public financing has been a smashing success since it was
implemented in 2008. A recent report shows that Connecticut’s system has decreased the number of uncontested elections and reduced the influence of lobbyists. The number
of federal public corruption convictions in Connecticut decreased
drastically after the adoption of their public funding system as
compared to the years immediately preceding reform. And the four-year
stretch since reforms were implemented has had the fewest convictions of
any four consecutive years since the Department of Justice started
reporting this data.Furthermore, public financing programs are highly popular where they have been implemented. Connecticut voters are strongly in favor
of the program, supporting it at a rate of 79 to 15 percent after
hearing how it works. And voters understand the connection to the
influence of money and corruption: They were more than three times more
likely to agree with the statement, “The state needs the Citizens’
Election Program because, in the past, lobbyists and state contractors
received special deals in exchange for political contributions which has
even landed some politicians in jail,” than an alternative criticizing
the cost of the program. Arizona’s public financing system is similarly popular with its voters, and Maine’s system is even more popular, with 88 percent of Mainers in support.Opponents are Wrong that New York City’s System has Fostered CorruptionOpponents wrongly claim that public financing won’t help to address
the problem of money in politics, even suggesting that public financing
will increase corruption. Opponents have seized on a 2011 report
by the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) that argues public
financing systems in Arizona, Maine, and New York City are characterized
by the “rampant” abuse of public funds and corrupt practices.The CCP report’s section on New York City lists 24 scandals that are
supposed to be evidence that the city system has not deterred
corruption. But a closer look reveals severe flaws in CCP’s analysis.Several cases had nothing to do with public financing, including one
state legislator who never participated in the city system. Half of the
cases involve no wrongdoing: They either describe activity that is legal
and not corrupt or cite investigations that never found a crime or
election law violation. Finally, there are a number of examples of
candidates attempting to violate the rules of the city’s public funding
system. Every campaign in this last category was caught by the city’s
effective enforcement agency and either fined or denied public funds.
This shows that enforcement works, and it is a necessary part of
comprehensive campaign finance reform that includes public funding.The following list breaks down the 24 alleged scandals described in
the CCP report to show how little they tell us about the relationship
between corruption and public financing, suggesting that the CCP’s zeal
to attack public funding motivated it to trump up these cases.Cases that have nothing to do with public campaign funding

The report lists one member of the State Assembly
who never participated in the city’s public funding system, even though
the CCP claims its list consists of “New York City ‘Clean Elections’
candidates.”

Six cases of abuse of City Council members’
discretionary funds are described.* These have nothing to do with public
funding or campaign finance. New York State legislators do not have
access to discretionary funds.

Cases with no official finding of wrongdoing

Two candidates accepted public funds for elections
that the report claims were not competitive. This is not illegal, and
it’s not corruption.

Eight candidates were allegedly involved in
collusion between the Working Families Party and Data & Field
Services. Federal prosecutors decided not to file charges against those
candidates, and there was no finding of wrongdoing in a civil lawsuit
that WFP settled.

There are two unfounded allegations that candidates
spent public funds improperly. The report cites a news article that
presents no evidence that the expenditures in question violated the law.

Cases that were caught by New York City enforcement

Two candidates were found by the Campaign Finance
Board found to have coordinated with a labor union, resulting in in-kind
contributions that exceeded contribution limits. Both candidates paid
hefty
fines.

Four candidates violated campaign finance laws but
were caught by the Campaign Finance Board’s routine audits.* The agency
either denied the candidates public funds or ordered them to repay all
the public funds they had received.

*Former City Councilmember Miguel Martinez engaged in both
discretionary funds abuse and campaign finance violations that were
caught by routine audits.In short, three-quarters of the scandals discussed in the CCP report
had nothing to do with public financing and the handful that did were
all readily caught by the city's enforcement agency.New York State Needs Comprehensive Reform with Public Financing at its CoreToday, Albany’s corruption problems are threatening to completely
destroy public faith in government. In the last 10 years, at least 13
state elected officials have been convicted on charges relating to
corruption, and several more have been indicted. The corruption has
reached the highest levels of state government: Former Comptroller Alan Hevesi
steered $250 million of the state pension fund’s money to a company in
exchange for almost $1 million in cash and travel benefits from the
company’s founder. Three of the last five Senate Majority Leaders or
Co-Leaders have been indicted or convicted on corruption charges: Joseph
Bruno is awaiting retrial after his 2009 conviction was overturned due
to a change in the law, Pedro Espada pleaded guilty last year and faces a
trial on more charges, and Malcolm Smith was charged this month. The
damage to public trust is undeniable: A recent poll found that 87 percent of New Yorkers think that corruption is a somewhat serious or very serious problem.Although no system can stop individuals from behaving badly, public
financing combined with strong enforcement, disclosure, and reasonable
contribution limits can change the culture of Albany. It will end the
mad chase for campaign cash that starts some elected officials down the
road to corruption, and it will make candidates dependent on ordinary
voters rather than special interests. A system of matching small
donations with public funds will encourage New Yorkers to participate in
elections and give them a greater sense of ownership of their
government. Contrary to the exaggerated claims by ideological opponents
like the Center for Competitive Politics, public financing systems have
been a crucial element of anti-corruption reform in New York City,
Connecticut, and elsewhere.

Monday, April 22, 2013

With Albany rocked
by scandal over the last month, many believe that the time for
comprehensive campaign finance reform, with better enforcement, lower limits,
and public financing at its core, may finally have come.

And why not?
The public -- Democrats,
Republicans and Independents, all --
strongly supports it. With the
endorsement of the Governor, Speaker Silver, Senate IDC Leader Klein, and
Senate Democratic Conference Leader Andrea Stuart Cousins, we seem to have the
votes to make it happen.

Unfortunately, not everyone is on board with
bringing real reform to Albany. Some opponents are resorting to rather
silly arguments, in the apparent hope to slow things down. In today’s Daily Politics Ken Lovett reports that unnamed Senate Republicans “are
raising potential constitutional roadblocks,” to this reform.
Specifically, they point to “Article VII, section 8 of the
state Constitution that says that ‘the money of
the state shall not be given or loaned to or in aid of any private corporation
or association, or private undertaking.’”
(emphasis added).

The theory, as we understand it, is that this provision somehow
prevents matching funds from being used by a candidate running for public office.

To be generous, this is a novel interpretation that is almost
certainly wrong. To be ungenerous, it is
a desperate attempt by certain legislators to try to protect the status quo by
hiding behind a misreading of the State Constitution. Either way, it should not be taken seriously
by those with the power to bring comprehensive campaign finance reform to New
York.

As it happens, the New York Court of Appeals recently looked at
this section of the State Constitution and made clear that for those who sought
to challenge a statute on these grounds, the “burden is a heavy one”
because “enactments of the Legislature—a coequal branch of government—enjoy a
strong presumption of constitutionality.”
Bordeleau v. State, 18 N.Y.3d 305, 313
(2011) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The burden is “exceedingly strong” where the
expenditures are “designed in the public interest.” Id. “Indeed, we have recognized the need for
deference involving public funding programs essential to addressing the
problems of modern life, unless such programs are patently illegal.” Id. (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted). Id.

A public funding program at the core of comprehensive campaign
finance reform, passed in reaction to a series of state corruption scandals,
would seem to fall squarely into an expenditure “designed in the public
interest.”

It is also worth noting forty-six states have a prohibition on the use of
public funds similar to that of New York, including other states with public
financing programs such as Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Maine. None have been successfully challenged on
this ground.

Nor has a
similar provision been used to challenge New York City’s public financing
system, which has existed for 24 years.
In fact, the State Constitution has an arguably stronger restriction on
the use of public funds. Pursuant to Article VIII, section 1 of
the state Constitution, “No . . . city . . . shall give or loan any money
or property to or in aid of any individual, or private corporation or
association, or private undertaking . . . .”

Despite multiplechallengesto the City’s program
by some of the best anti-reform lawyers in the country, no one has brought this
provision up. Wonder why? We’re guessing it’s because previous
challengers to the City’s public financing system read the same case law we
did, and decided they did not want to get laughed out of court.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Every Friday, the
Brennan Center will be compiling the latest news concerning the corrosive
nature of money in New York State politics—and the ongoing need for public
financing and robust campaign finance reform. We’ll also be linking to
dispatches from around the country highlighting the national scope of this
crisis. This week’s links were contributed by Syed Zaidi.

The New York Leadership for Accountable
Government (NY LEAD), a group of business, civic and philanthropic leaders
organized to push for a citizen-funded elections in New York State, has
added several prominent new members to its ranks. Delroy Warmington,
managing partner of Delwar Capital Management, and Cynthia DiBarolo, CEO of
Tigress Financial Partners and chairwoman of the Greater New York Chamber of
Commerce, are two of the recent additions with impeccable business credentials.
Dennis Mehiel, chairman and CEO of U.S. Corrugated and Battery Park City and
former candidate for Lieutenant Governor in 2002, stated that “We must end the
wasteful political arms race that forces so many businesses and business owners
to siphon more and more money into election campaigns. A system of small-donor
matching funds is a good answer. It will encourage business growth, help constituents
hold candidates and officeholders accountable, and ensure fair legislation in
Albany.” The complete
list of new members is available here.

A
Solution to the Corruption Crisis

In an Albany
Times-Union
op-ed, Jonathan Soros,
CEO of investment firm JS Capital Management and co-founder of Friends of
Democracy, discusses how the State Legislature can respond to the recent
corruption scandal which has tarnished its reputation. Since 2000, twenty-six sitting
New York State Legislators have been indicted, arrested, or implicated for
corruption. Although enforcement of the law and prosecution of corruption can
catch criminal offenses, altering systematic incentives in favor of
transparency and responsiveness can take us one step further. Governor Cuomo’s
proposal for comprehensive campaign finance reform is one such systematic
change that can induce greater transparency and accountability from our elected
officials. The proposal matches small political contributions from local
residents with a limited amount of public funds in an effort to decrease Legislators’
dependence on big contributions and special interests. Consequently regular constitutions
are empowered. Along with the disclosure of campaign funds and effective
enforcement of the law by state agencies, matching small donations can increase
constituent participation, and create disincentives for reliance on special
interests, which breeds corruption.

Riverdale Press Editorial Calls
for Campaign Finance Reform

This week, the Riverdale Press embraced campaign finance reform in a Wednesday editorial.
Pointing to the recent scandals involving Assemblyman Eric Stevenson (D-Bronx),
Malcolm Smith (D-Hollis) and Bronx Republican Party Chair Jay Savino, the
editorial stated that this culture of corruption is generated in part by our
elections system. “The pay for play culture that periodically crosses over into
crime is far from surprising.” The concern is not only about illegal bribery
but also about high contribution limits and big donations from a few special
interests. The public would certainly be equally as appalled at campaign
activities that are perfectly legal under current state laws as they were by
corruption of their elected officials.

Pension Fund Wins Greater Disclosure
from Companies

New York State Comptroller, Thomas
DiNapoli, has reached an agreement with
five Fortune 500 companies
to disclose their political spending. The companies, including Southwest
Airlines, Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Plum Creek Timber Company, Harley-Davidson
and Noble Energy, have committed to publicly disclose all their direct and
indirect monetary and non-monetary political contributions to campaigns and
politically active trade associations. As the trustee of the New York State
Common Retirement Fund, which holds millions of dollars of shares in numerous
corporations, DiNapoli argues that such information is important for investors.
“Shareholders have a right to know how companies are using corporate money for
political purposes. These companies deserve credit for embracing transparency
and reducing potential risk to shareholder value by disclosing direct and
indirect contributions made with corporate funds,” DiNapoli said in response to
the agreement. DiNapoli has filed 26 shareholder resolutions
in 2013 on the
issue of political spending disclosure, reaching agreement with eight companies,
including Qualcomm, KeyCorp and PepsiCo.

Cuomo
Proposes Criminal Justice Response to Corruption Scandals

Governor Cuomo has unveiled a series of tough
reforms seeking
to reduce corruption in Albany. The proposal, known as the Public Trust Act,
would change the state’s definition of bribery to conform to federal standards
to allow greater leeway for prosecutors and increase penalties for official
misconduct and misuse of taxpayer dollars. Under the proposed law, elected
officials as well as other state and local government workers could be charged
with misdemeanors if they are aware of bribery schemes but fail to report them.
The plan would also bar anyone convicted of public corruption felonies from
holding public office, serving as a lobbyist or doing business with the state.
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and State District Attorneys have welcomed the proposal but
request greater resources and authority to probe the executive and legislative
branches. Good-government groups have similarly praised the plan
but insist that the entrenched culture of corruption cannot change unless campaign finance
reform is also instituted. Karen Scharff, executive director of Citizen Action,
said she hopes the Governor will take the next step and reform the way
campaigns are financed. Currently candidates have to rely on large donors and
special interests for campaign contributions, which breeds a “show me the money”
culture. “From day one, you’re stuck in this pay to play system,” Scharff
stated.

NATIONAL

Governors’
Associations Turn to Dark Money Groups

Non-profit groups affiliated with the
Republican Governors Association and the Democratic Governors Association have spent
millions of dollars in state political battles without being required to
disclose their donors. Non-profits do not have to disclose their donors if they
spent less than half of their funds on political activities. The Republican
Governors Association Public Policy Committee spent $10 million in 2011, and
America Works USA, which is tied to Democratic Governors Association, funded
ads worth $4.4 million. Both non-profits in turn channeled
some of their funds to other non-profits creating a network of untraceable political
contributions, which is being called the “Russian nesting doll” technique.
For example, the Republican Governors Association Public Policy Committee gave
$200,000 to a D.C. based non-profit called ReAL Action, an organization
“dedicated to renewing America through the restoration and application of
biblical values.” In turn, ReAL Action then dispersed funds to three
conservative non-profits, one of which funneled the money to a political
committee called Iowa for Freedom. Iowa for Freedom ran ads against “liberal,
out-of-control judges ignoring our traditional values,” in an attempt to unseat
three state judges in 2010.

Hawaii
Public Financing Bill Continues to Advance

In Hawaii, a bill creating a
comprehensive public financing program for state House elections has passed
through both houses of the legislature. A conference committee must now
reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions. According to House
Bill 1481, candidates qualify for public funding by raising 250 $5 donations
and collecting 200 signatures from voters in their districts. Participating
candidates have to abide by lower contribution limits. The amount of public
funds available will be determined by the average sum spent by winners across
all districts in the previous election cycle; the current number is around
$35,000. In defense of the cost, Kory Payne, executive director of Voter Owned
Hawaii, stated that “The taxpaying public ends up paying for elections by not
paying for them. We pay for them in the form of kickbacks to special interests,
bad policies, corruption and infrastructure mismanagement.” A new
poll by Public Campaign and Lake Research shows that 83 percent of voters
in Hawaii think the state should “overhaul” or “make modest changes” to
campaign finance laws.